Dyer Lum - Thought

Thought

…rent, interest, profit are the triple heads of the monster against which modern civilization is waging war. —Dyer Lum

Lum's political philosophy was a fusion of individualist anarchist economics– "a radicalized form of laissez-faire economics" inspired by the Boston anarchists– with radical labor organization similar to that of the Chicago anarchists of the time. Lum's ideas have variously been described as individualist anarchist, syndicalist, mutualist, and anarcho-communist, as well as anarchist without adjectives. Herbert Spencer and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon influenced Lum strongly in his individualist tendency. He developed a "mutualist" theory of unions and as such was active within the Knights of Labor and later promoted anti-political strategies in the American Federation of Labor. Frustration with abolitionism, spiritualism, and labor reform caused Lum to embrace anarchism and radicalize workers, as he came to believe that revolution would inevitably involve a violent struggle between the working class and the employing class. Convinced of the necessity of violence to enact social change he volunteered to fight in the American Civil War, hoping thereby to bring about the end of slavery. Kevin Carson has praised Lum's fusion of individualist laissez-faire economics with radical labor activism as "creative" and described him as "more significant than any in the Boston group".

Lum argued in The Economics of Anarchy that the "labor problem" was a result of intervention by the state in creating monopolies, with particular reference to the land and money monopolies. Lum advocated the destruction of the land monopoly, which he saw as a government-granted monopoly, by abolishing land titles and to allow free access to land, thus making the extraction of rent impossible. Similarly, mutual banks set up to issue their own currencies would end the state monopoly and undercut the ability of banks and lenders to charge interest.

In anarchy labor and capital would be merged into one, for capital would be without prerogatives and dependent upon labor, and owned by it. The laborer would find that to produce was to enjoy and the nightmare of destitution banished. The artisan would find in co-operation that nature alone remained to be exploited. The tradesman would find that production offered greater inducement than exchange, unless he accepted a position of competence and ease in the labor exchange which would supplant isolated stores. The clerk, no longer with his horizon bounded by a ribbon counter, would have full scope to display his talents in any direction. The farmer, above all, free from irksome care to meet interest, to dread foreclosure from enforced taxation, with his family growing up around him, and rendered secure by a common title and mutual inter-dependence, or seeking in insurance indemnity for depredation. would find in anarchy release from useless drudgery and his labor crowned with plentiness and peace.

—Dyer Lum, Chapter 6 of Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis, Albert Parsons ed.